Independent Study
By: Jazmin Brown
Completion Date: December 2024
This research aims to examine the trends in narcotic violations during the implementation of affordable housing initiatives in Philadelphia. The central focus is to assess how these housing programs, which were introduced to address housing accessibility and neighborhood stability, have influenced the spatial and temporal patterns of narcotic violations. The study also explores how other key socioeconomic factors, such as building demolitions, real estate transactions, and access to economic assistance programs like SNAP benefits, may potentially influence these violation trends. By analyzing the interplay between these factors during the affordable housing program’s timeframe, this research seeks to understand how urban renewal efforts and social support systems impact neighborhood dynamics, stability, and, ultimately, narcotic violations. The findings aim to provide valuable insights for policy-making, with the potential to inform future urban planning and crime reduction strategies in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia’s Division of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) plays a central role in the production of affordable housing to meet the city’s pressing housing needs and enhance neighborhood stability. As part of the Department of Planning and Development, the DHCD's Affordable Housing Production directs funding and resources toward initiatives that expand affordable housing opportunities for residents across all income levels. The Affordable Housing Production allocates funding to developers to support the construction and preservation of affordable housing units across the city. This includes constructing new affordable homes, rehabilitating and preserving existing housing stock, and providing assistance to first-time homebuyers. The efforts of DHCD’s Affordable Housing Production prioritize support for vulnerable populations, such as families at risk of foreclosure, individuals with disabilities, and homeless individuals, including those living with HIV/AIDS. In addition to increasing housing availability, these initiatives address broader community challenges by stabilizing neighborhoods, reducing vacant properties, and fostering economic growth. The development of affordable housing creates jobs, revitalizes commercial corridors, and contributes to the overall economic health of the city, ensuring that all Philadelphians have access to safe, affordable homes in thriving communities (Philadelphia Division of Housing and Community Development, n.d.).
The socioeconomic factors driving narcotic violations are intricately linked to patterns of urban development, economic pressures, and the availability of social support programs. In Philadelphia, these dynamics extend beyond affordable housing initiatives to include building demolitions, real estate transfers, and the distribution of SNAP benefits. Each of these elements may contribute to shifts in community stability and could indirectly influence crime trends.
Building demolitions in Philadelphia represent an ongoing effort to address vacant or dangerous properties. Such demolitions, conducted by both private owners and the Department of Licenses and Inspections, are often concentrated in economically distressed neighborhoods (City of Philadelphia, 2017). High rates of vacant or abandoned properties in these areas could be associated with increased narcotic activity, as they provide spaces for drug dealing and consumption. The removal of these structures could signify efforts to mitigate crime by reducing the availability of such spaces. However, the broader implications of these demolitions, such as their impact on displacement, gentrification, or community stability, require further exploration to understand their influence on narcotic violations.
Real estate transfers provide insights into the economic and social transformation of Philadelphia neighborhoods. The Department of Records maintains comprehensive data on property transactions, including sales, deeds, and sheriff sales (City of Philadelphia, 2018). High rates of real estate activity often signal gentrification or community revitalization, as wealthier residents and businesses invest in previously neglected areas. This shift can lead to a decline in narcotic violations due to improved economic conditions and the displacement of illegal activities. Conversely, in neighborhoods where real estate transfers reflect economic stagnation or speculative practices, narcotic activity may persist or even increase due to a lack of sustained community investment.
The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which replaced the federal Food Stamp Program, has been in effect since October 1, 2008 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). SNAP benefits, as tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau, serve as a key indicator of economic need and the reach of social support programs in Philadelphia. By addressing food insecurity and alleviating economic stress, SNAP benefits have the potential to reduce factors that contribute to narcotic-related crimes. The relationship between SNAP distribution and narcotic violations can be examined to evaluate the effectiveness of social aid programs. For example, neighborhoods with high SNAP participation rates may experience reductions in crime if economic stressors are sufficiently mitigated. Additionally, tracking trends in narcotic violations over time in areas receiving significant SNAP benefits offers an opportunity to assess the broader impact of federal and state programs on community stability and public safety.
Together, these factors illustrate the complex interplay between economic conditions, urban policy, and crime. In Philadelphia, these developmental initiatives not only shape the city’s physical and economic landscape but may also offer valuable perspectives on the underlying drivers of narcotic violations. By integrating data from these domains, we can gain a deeper understanding of how socioeconomic changes may influence naarcotic-related activity and identify strategies to foster safer, more resilient communities.
This study strives to address a longstanding issue through an innovative approach. Previous research has extensively examined the relationship between crime, including narcotic violations, and affordable housing, particularly focusing on whether low-income housing initiatives in suburban areas contribute to heightened crime rates. In 2015, a study was done by Ayoung Woo and Kenneth Joh, studying whether subsidized housing developments increased neighborhood crime (Woo and Joh, 2015). Moreover, in 2013 a study was performed aiming to see if affordable housing projects harm in suburban communities (Albright et al., 2013). This leaves a gap in research, specifically from another perspective. This study seeks to fill this void by not only investigating the potential for affordable housing to mitigate crime but also by studying the efficacy of a specific program implemented within a particular city, and considering how other critical socioeconomic factors such as building demolitions, real estate transfers, and access to economic assistance programs like SNAP benefits interact with housing initiatives to influence neighborhood dynamics and crime trends.
Review in this area is crucial, as it holds the potential to inform policy adjustments and proactive measures aimed at increasing positive outcomes while mitigating negative ones. Furthermore, the insights generated from this study can extend beyond its boundaries, offering valuable understanding for communities at large. By studying existing programs and their outcomes, this research lays the groundwork for the development of new initiatives. Ultimately, this approach is a kickstart for innovation and improvement, enabling the replication of successful strategies.
Narcotic Violations:
Affordable Housing Units:
Building Demolitions:
Real Estate Transfers:
SNAP Benefits:
Other Socioeconomic and Urban Development Initiatives:
Data Bias:
Indirect Measures:
Temporal Mismatches:
1. Philadelphia Affordable Housing Production & Narcotic Violation Analysis
It has been shown that various aspects of the housing environment, such as neighborhood socioeconomic status, the availability of affordable housing, and exposure to crime and violence, can significantly influence narcottic-related challenges. Disadvantaged neighborhoods with limited access to affordable housing tend to exhibit higher rates of narcotic availability, trafficking, and substance abuse. Decisions regarding housing policies and urban development initiatives play a crucial role in shaping the availability of affordable housing, housing stability, and overall neighborhood conditions, all of which can impact drug and narcotics-related crime. Policies focused on expanding affordable housing options, enhancing housing quality, and revitalizing communities may indirectly contribute to addressing narcotic-related outcomes.
This study focuses on analyzing datasets sourced from Philadelphia, PA, over a ten-year period, specifically examining data on Affordable Housing Production from the Division of Housing and Community Development (DHCD), available through OpenDataPhilly, covering the years 2008 to 2018. The affordable housing data comes from the DHCD, which provides financial support to developers involved in the construction or renovation of affordable housing. These units are made available for sale, rent, and to accommodate individuals with special needs, highlighting the DHCD's critical role in addressing housing challenges in the city. This data will be cross-analyzed with Philadelphia crime data to explore potential correlations between housing development and crime trends. Understanding the relationship between affordable housing production and crime rates is important, as it may offer valuable insights into how housing policies and development initiatives impact crime levels, providing useful information for policymakers and urban planners.
The plot above illustrates the annual count of drug-related crimes from 2008 to 2018, using a time series line graph to highlight trends over this period. This visualization provides a clear representation of fluctuations and patterns in drug crime rates, offering a comprehensive view of their progression over time. By presenting the data in a continuous and visually engaging format, the graph helps identify key trends and anomalies that can drive further analysis. Analyzing these patterns offers valuable insights into the dynamics of drug-related crime in Philadelphia, enabling the development of data-driven strategies and targeted interventions aimed at addressing underlying issues and improving community outcomes.
As shown, the overall trend of narcotic violations declines from 2008 to 2018. The highest number of narcotic violations occurred in 2008, with the lowest point reached in 2015. After 2015, while narcotic violations slightly increased and fluctuated, the overall trajectory remains downward.
This bar plot provides a clear and concise overview of the total number of affordable housing units built each year from 2008 to 2018. The visualization presents this data in a straightforward, accessible format, allowing viewers to quickly understand annual trends in housing construction activity. The use of bars makes it easy to compare the number of units built across different years, highlighting fluctuations and patterns over time. By focusing specifically on the number of units built, this plot offers valuable insights into the city's housing development trajectory.
In terms of annual construction, 2008 saw a strong start, with the highest number of units built occurring in 2014. Since then, the number of units built has declined, though it remains steady and consistent year after year.
A time series plot was used to visualize the relationship between the total number of affordable housing units built and the crime rate per 100,000 individuals. This visualization enables the examination of trends over time and potential associations between these variables. By plotting both datasets on the same graph, fluctuations in housing construction and changes in crime rates can be analyzed together. This approach helps identify patterns or correlations between housing development and crime levels. Additionally, the time series format provides valuable insights into how these variables evolve over the designated period, enhancing our understanding of their relationship.
As shown, the cumulative number of affordable housing units built steadily increases over time. During this period, the trend in narcotic violation rates also decreases. This may suggest a potential link between the affordable housing initiative and the reduction in narcotic violations.
Above is a time series line plot comparing narcotic violation rates between Detroit, MI, and Philadelphia, PA. Overall, Detroit consistently exhibits higher narcotic violation rates than Philadelphia, with only small fluctuations over the years. From 2008 to 2018, Detroit's narcotic violation rates have seen a slight increase. In contrast, Philadelphia has experienced a steady decline in narcotic violations, despite some minor fluctuations, further supporting the potential connection between the city's affordable housing initiatives and the reduction in narcotic violations.
Why Detroit?
In Detroit, numerous affordable housing projects funded by the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program have encountered ownership changes after 15 years, which has led to financial instability. These properties often face issues such as mortgage defaults and tax foreclosures, highlighting the unsustainable nature of affordable housing without continuous external investment. This financial strain has contributed to disinvestment in these properties, resulting in some becoming uninhabitable and further diminishing the city's housing stock. Additionally, the shortage of capable nonprofit organizations to manage and maintain these properties has exacerbated the situation. Between 2016 and 2022, many projects that reached the 15-year mark struggled financially, emphasizing the critical need for restructuring to ensure the long-term viability of affordable housing in Detroit (Dewar et al., 2020).
The bar plot provides a detailed breakdown of affordable housing units built by zip code, offering valuable insights into how housing development is distributed across different areas. This visualization helps identify which neighborhoods have seen the most investment in affordable housing, reflecting efforts to address housing shortages and improve living conditions for lower-income residents. By presenting the data in a bar plot, it becomes easier to compare housing development across zip codes, highlighting areas with the most significant improvements and those that may require more attention or investment.
The zip codes with the highest number of affordable housing units built are 19121 and 19104, with 401 and 39 units constructed, respectively. These areas are followed by five other zip codes, each with over 20 units built, demonstrating that certain neighborhoods have seen concentrated efforts in expanding affordable housing stock. Here we can identify spatial trends in housing development, offering a foundation for targeted policy decisions and resource allocation to further support underdeveloped or underserved areas.
The affordable housing data was organized by zip code to aggregate it into meaningful geographic units, facilitating the examination of patterns and variations across different areas within the city. By grouping the data by zip code, we were able to compare the distribution of affordable housing units and assess disparities in accessibility across neighborhoods. Visualizing the binned data on a geographic map provided valuable insights into these spatial patterns. This map allowed us to pinpoint areas with higher concentrations of affordable housing units while highlighting regions with potential gaps or shortages. Ultimately, this approach can inform policymakers and stakeholders in the development of targeted initiatives.